Philosophy 101

[Blarghagh]

Ah, but you'd have the evidence to see that the Earthquake did happen!

 

Not that I disagree with your statement that the saying is stupid.

 

"Hey, that tree there is laying on the ground. It must have grown that way. I mean, I didn't hear it, so it couldn't have fallen down."

 

Ah, but we're discussing the sound!!!!

 

Well, it moved, didn't it? That just brings us back to tremors. So it having moved in itself is proof enough that it has, in fact, made a sound.

[True_Magus]

And in truly un-zen like ways I shall say that that ancient saying is stupid. Of course it makes a sound. Sound is a tremor. Almost everything causes tremors. Just because no one picks them up doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[Crumbs!] that's like saying 'if an earthquake brings down your house but you're not around did the earthquake ever happen?'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The saying has nothing to do with whether or not tree fell down. I can't believe you need that explained as elemetary as that is. The question is "what constitutes sound." Of course the tree created vibrations, that is a given, but can vibrations be called sounds if it is not heard. As far as the senses are concerned sentient beings are what holds the keys to reality because, again, of relativity. So no that has no ralation to an the existance of an earthquake that brought down ones house. If you are so closed minded to philosophy then why have you even looked at a forum labeled thus? Just because your ignorant of something and have no desire to be released from the mundane bonds of stupidity does not make something stupid. Please keep that in mind. Edited August 18, 2006 by True_Magus

[Blank]

I think Neutral was saying that if the tree falls then it moves, so it makes noise, whether someone hears it or not. Of course, as you pointed out, the question has to do with relativity, as in, who hears it, and how does one know it made a noise if nobody heard it.

I'll try to modernize the saying though: I stand in one spot for ten minutes, then I move to another spot for 1 minute (during that one minute, nothing changes from when I was in the first spot), then I go back to the original spot. For all practical purposes imaginable, did I ever move? No, because it was as if I was still in the original spot. Nobody was there to record it. In fact, what I tell you of my supposed movement could be a lie. So, did I move or not?

Edited August 18, 2006 by Blank

[metadigital]

Please also, in the mode of the great philosophers of history, only take issue with the topics, not the person expressing them.

 

Perhaps you may be aware of the Devil's Advocate principle, whereby someone uses a contrary argument to test a proposition?

 

In any case, even if someone writes something that you consider egregiously incoorect, please concentrate on correcting the statement, and not demeaning yourself, and everyone reading, with argumentum ad hominem.

 

Thanks for your continued support and patronage of the fine art of quodlibetarian exploration.

[Diamond]

The saying has nothing to do with whether or not tree fell down. I can't believe you need that explained as elemetary as that is. The question is "what constitutes sound." Of course the tree created vibrations, that is a given, but can vibrations be called sounds if it is not heard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Simple.

Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

See? Sound is the vibrations of certain frequencies that can be potentially heard by a human. So no, your argument is not convincing.

 

 

And yes, I agree with TrueNeutral, this old saying is still stupid.

[Blank]

Try the new saying! The new saying!

[Arkan]

Try the new saying! The new saying!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is there a cat in the box? (or something like that) Or is it alive?

[metadigital]

Ask Erwin Schr

[alanschu]

If you are so closed minded to philosophy then why have you even looked at a forum labeled thus? Just because your ignorant of something and have no desire to be released from the mundane bonds of stupidity does not make something stupid. Please keep that in mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

To be fair, the "if a tree falls down and no one's around, does it make a sound" is pretty weak from a philosophical perspective.

 

Why wouldn't it make a sound?

Edited August 18, 2006 by alanschu

[Pidesco]

You are all twisting the tree sound dioscussion in ways that entirely miss the point.

 

The question is whether an event (any event) has existence outside the realm of experience. Meaning, that unless someone witnesses an event, directly or indirectly, you have no grounds to believe that it has happened, and hence it is possible to argue that the whole of reality is an illusion because there is nothing to prove it exists beyond your own mind.

[Krookie]

If you are so closed minded to philosophy then why have you even looked at a forum labeled thus? Just because your ignorant of something and have no desire to be released from the mundane bonds of stupidity does not make something stupid. Please keep that in mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

To be fair, the "if a tree falls down and no one's around, does it make a sound" is pretty weak from a philosophical perspective.

 

Why wouldn't it make a sound?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not a matter of "why" it's a matter of "who knows?"

[alanschu]

Meh, I have never been a fan of philosophy.

 

Empiricism for the win.

[Calax]

You are all twisting the tree sound dioscussion in ways that entirely miss the point.

 

The question is whether an event (any event) has existence outside the realm of experience. Meaning, that unless someone witnesses an event, directly or indirectly, you have no grounds to believe that it has happened, and hence it is possible to argue that the whole of reality is an illusion because there is nothing to prove it exists beyond your own mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

then god doesn't exsist. YAY!

[Diamond]

The question is whether an event (any event) has existence outside the realm of experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And our answer was "Yes". If you can't hear the tree fall, it doesn't there was no sound.

[Pidesco]

And our answer was "Yes". If you can't hear the tree fall, it doesn't there was no sound.

 

 

What?

[metadigital]

And our answer was "Yes". If you can't hear the tree fall, it doesn't there was no sound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he was indicating his (their) subscription to the school of Realism.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to register on their radar that there are other, equally valid, philosophical hypotheses.

[Diamond]

If you can't hear the tree fall, it doesn't mean there was no sound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pardon my grammar.

[alanschu]

And our answer was "Yes". If you can't hear the tree fall, it doesn't there was no sound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he was indicating his (their) subscription to the school of Realism.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to register on their radar that there are other, equally valid, philosophical hypotheses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Which is a bit of a fault with Philosophy IMO. I'm all for introspection, and think it can be a good thing at one point. But it seems as long as you state your assumptions, and base it in your logic, you can pretty much say anything.

 

I think we're in a petri-dish, being experimented on by some other, outer universe race. The big bang was essentially the drop placed into the petri dish. As the "drop" expands, our universe expands. Somewhere high, high above, an intelligent life form is noticing some interesting activity in one part, which is naturally the Milky Way Galaxy.

 

 

Cosmology is fun!

[metadigital]

Hey! There is NO FAULT with philosophy! Humans bad, philosophy good.

[Rosbjerg]

Humans bad, philosophy good.. hmm, but we created philosophy and by extension that makes philosophy bad as well! since you carry a part of yourself into your creation ..

 

"Oh dear" says God and dissappears in a puff of logic..

[metadigital]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

 

The argument goes something like this:

[Lord Mayyn]

we, as a people who wish to understand, need to name things so we know what to call it. we made up the concept of nothing. absence of everything. it is a word that truly has no meaning.

 

 

what is nothing? nothing is nothing.

it truly makes no sence.

just another made up word. like bling

[Arkan]

we, as a people who wish to understand, need to name things so we know what to call it. we made up the concept of nothing. absence of everything. it is a word that truly has no meaning.

 

 

what is nothing? nothing is nothing.

it truly makes no sence.

just another made up word. like bling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But BLING suer exists

 

[The Coordinator]

If there is nothing, why do you care? Well, because if ya don

[kirottu]

Classic necromancy 101.