Ya atoms dont exactly exist as atoms but only as potential atoms. I love quantum physics!

Don't get too full of yourself

Thank you.

We could use these definitions.

However we'd need a third word to differentiate between "white noise" and
"structured noise". A cannon firing has a distinct "sound" just as a tree breaking
and falling would.

I have no problem with having more words. In many cases much more can be
communicated if a more precise wors is available.

Someone explain the difference to me between sound and noise...
Ain't it both just vibrations of the air which causes it to make a sound/noise?
So it doesn't really matter how you call it if you ask me..


Edit: I searched for it on wikipedia

In common use the word noise means unwanted sound or noise pollution. In electronics noise can refer to the electronic signal corresponding to acoustic noise (in an audio system) or the electronic signal corresponding to the (visual) noise commonly seen as 'snow' on a degraded television or video image. In signal processing or computing it can be considered data without meaning; that is, data that is not being used to transmit a signal, but is simply produced as an unwanted by-product of other activities. In Information Theory, however, noise is still considered to be information. In a broader sense, film grain or even advertisements in web pages can be considered noise

Doesnt white noise have to do with Audio?

Using common definitions all noises and sounds are sound. Language can
get complicated because words have meaning only in context. Obviously
noises aren't sound like an argument or a building are sound.

We use the word noise to refer to things which are random, chaotic, or un-
structured and sound is used to refer to regular or heard noises. If you are
sitting in a room and someone says "hush, I heard a noise" then one might
assume that there was a sound which was unidentified and might have come
from somewhere that would indicate a problem. "Hush, I heard a sound"
would mean that the percieved vibrations were identifiable but indicated more
attention was needed rather than an immediate threat was at hand.

People don't use all terms the same and terms are often used incorrectly as
well. Mass media does an excellent job of scrambling the language for all, but
words have always taken their meaning from context.

If you want to say it makes no sound then fine. But you when you refer to
vibrations that occur when no one is around you will need a new word or to
let your listener know that you are using words with what might be different
meanings. Miscommunication is actually the norm in virtually all complicated
situations. While individuals will always use words and language as they see
fit it should be remembered that the purpose of all communication is the trans-
fer of information. When this transfer is incomplete or incorrect it can harm
either or both of the communicators.

Perhaps one of the most extreme examples of the danger of miscommunication
occured near Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 (June 6). Cartographers didn't
have a standard means of identifying overhanging cliffs on topographical maps.
One platoon of American soldiers landed on a section of beach that was believed
to have a steep 75 degree incline and they had climbing gear to scale this cliff.
In actuality the map was drawn with non-standard means to depict an over-hang-
ing cliff. These men had nowhere to go and dozens were mowed down by enemy
machine gun fire.

To this day there is no standard means to identify the moment after 11:59:599...
(PM) which occurs once with each day. It is called midnight but it is neither PM
nor AM and falls in between the two days. If someone tells you to meet him on
midnight tuesday there is no way to know whether to set out late Monday or late
Tuesday unless you can tell by context.

It is important that communication is as smooth as possible. I would maintain
that the more word definitions are nailed down and the more distinct the same
word's different meanings the more likely that actual tranfer of ideas and infor-
mation might occur. There seems little reason to speak or write if meaning is lost.

Absolutely !

I totally agree ..and , by the way .. I love quantum physics too.

I see it as - apart from being extremly difficult to read - the science that HAD to admit , that there HAS to be something Beyond science itself .

The smaller you go , the bigger it gets .

Many quantum biologists have kissed Darwin goodbye , too .

And everything stays just "potential " !

Sama

If only I knew what that meant

Don't worry , nobody really does !

Sama

Recording of tree falling in the middle of the woods with no one around.

http://www.silentpodcast.com/feed/Tree.m4a

I dont understand this.



I use the word noise for even well structured noise. Like "Hey man I heard this great noise down town" I think you are being overly politicaly correct here to look smart.



Blah blah blah



Im not saying it makes sound or no sound. All I am saying is that we cant prove it makes a NOISE because there is no one there to prove it.



Great story but I think you are missing the point........ it is no great intellectual or academic misnomer is we use the word sound or noise in the argument presented here. Dont try and complicate things for the sake of complicating. Only complicating where necessary.

Whether the tree makes a noise, sound or vibration makes no difference because no is there to say whether it does or not. Hence it can be put down to probabilities if you like or be open to endless possibilitiy. Either way they are all acts of faith.




Nicely put! Whoa! I like you.



That would make two of us....



If there is no one around then there is gonna be no one around to hear the recording either

I agree with you. There is no fundamental difference, especially not with what we are all debating here.

Are we absolutely sure what the philosopher intended?

Does the context of the riddle deal with definition of sound?

Or does it question reality without the presence of an observer?

These are two completely different riddles. One of them should be ruled out.

It might help to know:

1. Who said it.

2. His or her field of study.

3. When it was said.

4. Who was the intended audience.

Crap. I think it is quite clear what the riddle intends.

noise /nɔɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noiz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, noised, nois·ing.

–noun 1. sound, esp. of a loud, harsh, or confused kind: deafening noises.
2. a sound of any kind: to hear a noise at the door.
3. loud shouting, outcry, or clamor.
4. a nonharmonious or discordant group of sounds.
5. an electric disturbance in a communications system that interferes with or prevents reception of a signal or of information, as the buzz on a telephone or snow on a television screen.
6. Informal. extraneous, irrelevant, or meaningless facts, information, statistics, etc.: The noise in the report obscured its useful information.
7. Obsolete. rumor or gossip, esp. slander.
–verb (used with object) 8. to spread, as a report or rumor; disseminate (usually fol. by about or abroad): A new scandal is being noised about.
–verb (used without object) 9. to talk much or publicly.
10. to make a noise, outcry, or clamor.
—Idiom11. make noises, Informal. to speak vaguely; hint: He is making noises to the press about running for public office.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noise

Cladking what are the fundamental differences between noise and sound????????????????

HA HAAA is this still going on?

If we didnt exist, would there still be a problem?

When a tree natural is worn and is bound to crack at the trunk somewhere. It is a natural break , and like everything that has heavy mass weight falling to gravity, in like a ship sinking or a tree timbering,
theres a song it sings to every creature within the distances of it , a warning , a law of physics, sound and beauty, it dies and goes back to the ground ,
I ;VE ALWAYS BEEN FASCINATED BY THE SOUNDS OF SINKING SHIPS , THEY CRY, AND MOAN THEN ENGULFED , SUCKED UNDER THE WATER WICH IS THE HEAVEST , MORE THAN THE SHIP. tHE TREE iM SURE LIKE WHEN ON FIRE CRACKLES AND BREAKS APART IN SOME SLOW SYSTEMATIC WAY
LIKE THE TWIN TOWERS, IT WILL FALL SLOWER BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO HAVE SMALLER PIECES , WINDOWS , LAYERS OF WEB WOOD OR STEEL TO HOLD ITS WEIGHT UP AND LEVEL TO BALANCE SO ITS FRAME IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

T TREE WILL SOUND LIKE A OPEN DOOR CREAKOING SLOWLY THEN BOOM ECHO ECHO ALL OF NATURE HAS TIME WHEN THEN THE TIMBERING STARTS, DUE TO ADVANCING THE TREE TO FALL SLOWER FOR THE LIFE AROUND IT CAN ESCAPE FROM.

Its either that or some guys yelling timber,... for his fellow lumberjacks. lol

cheo is absolutely correct, and Leonardo and others are absolutely wrong.

Remember what the great psychologist Carl Jung once said: "Conscisouness preceeds being."

The very idea of "sound" is just that -- a human concept created in the brain. Only a brain -- animal or human -- can complete the process which will result in sound.

When a tree falls in the woods, it created only the "potential" for sound. Sound is a combination of factors, and can only "come into being" when a human or animal brain completes the process.

The same is true of a rainbow. Rainbows are created by sunlight refracting through water droplets in the atmosphere creating a band of colors. But only a human brain can create the concept of "color." Think about it -- no human brain -- no concept of colorr -- therefore, no rainbow.

Words take their meanings in context. You can say that the foundation
of a building is sound but you won't be understood if you say it is noise.
Synonyms can be virtually identical but two words exist because they
have slightly different meaning and one or both will usually have totally
dissimilar meanings as well.

There is not a hugwe difference between "noise" and "sound" and certainly
"sound" is the word which would imply a listener must be present were one
to desire to differentiate the terms along these lines. To this extent the
question becomes one of debate and conjecture.

To my mind there is simply not a need to ever distinguish between events
producing "sound waves" along the lines of whether someone is listening or
not. Where there is no observer or recorder or someone to describe the
event people are usually unlikely to know of its occurrance. Should they
discover anyway from other evidence that the event occurred it should be
obvious if it made a noise or not. Except in a vacuum it's probable that all
physical events make a sound.

Again, I'm not saying that language precludes using terminology this way.
I'm saying that science has basically answered this question in the affirm-
ative. If the need arises to differentiate between a noise and a sound then
one must state his meaning because "sound" has come to mean the vibra-
tions caused by events. Obviously, too, some people will use this word dif-
ferently with a tacit or explicit understanding of the alternate meaning.

We are talking about the word sound when you use it the context of: "when a tree falls down in the forest and there's no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound"

Even though the word sound has more than 1 meaning. We are not speaking of the foundation of a building.
So the word sound in this topic is basically the same as the word noise. The only difference is that a noise is mostly used if it's about an unwanted sound.

Noise could also be used differently in other contexts, you have white noise, red noise, green noise, pink noise etc. But this has all to do with audio which we aren't speaking of.

i just thought about another example, today i was watching tv in my room and since theres no cable in dorms i have a really crappy signal, as i left the room to get my pizza out of the microwave, the tv(which was working ok) started getting a bad signal, and as soon as i entered the room the picture got very clear, i know this happens because of the energy or whatever that our body has, it's totally explainable by science, but what if there were other things that worked better when we are around, like sound, how do we know that it isn't something in out bodies that triggers sound, and if the sound is taped by a machine, how do you know that if you press play and run away really fast before the recording starts the thing will make the same sound that it would make if you were there, again, theres no way of knowing without the observer

Yea it's true that it can't be proven without an observer, but there is no reason the sound would dissapear if you run away. Or as in the topic question; its not very likely that there won't be a sound but it just can't be proven.

Are we absolutely sure what the philosopher intended?

1. Who said it?
Bishop George Berkeley (March 12, 1685 – January 14, 1753)

2. His field of study?
Mainly empiricism and idealism

3. When was it said?
Possibly in one of his works:
a. "To be is to be Perceived" (circa 1700)
b. "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" (1710)
c. "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous" (1713)

4. Who was the intended audience?
Most likely John Locke

There are two completely different riddles:
a. Does the context of the riddle deal with the definition of sound?
b. Does it question reality without the presence of an observer?
I believe that it questions reality without the presence of an observer.

Should one of the riddles be ruled out?
I believe that sound, the definition of sound, and the ability or inability to interpret a noise as sound should be ruled out.

Berkeley stated that individuals cannot think or talk about an object's being, but rather think or talk about an object's being perceived by someone; individuals cannot know any "real" object or matter "behind" the object as they perceive it, which "causes" their perceptions.

The question could have been written differently, such as:
a. "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?"
b. "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it, does the tree actually fall?"

In either case, Berkeley's intention was to demonstrate how the perceptions of an observer are needed to verify the reality of objects and events -- not just sound, but all the senses.

Please Google "George Berkeley" to verify these findings.

This is a philosophical question that we have no way of knowing the answer to. I comes down to does what we observe happen when we're not around to observe it. If nobody is around to observe it then we have no way of knowing if the tree falling even produces vibrations in the air.

(my emphasis)

The above IMO was originally a philosophical question focusing on the role of an observer - whether an observer creates the observable or whether the observable exists independent of the observer.

As cladking has pointed out, it is imperative that we have the right definitions.



Definitions (a,c) would suggest that if there is no human (or subject with hearing capabilities) the answer to the riddle is NO, it does not make a sound.

However, definition ( "Transmitted vibrations of any frequency" generalises the definition of sound to transmitted vibrations. I myself am more inclined to go with this more general definition.
Now I define what the "no one" in the original statement means. No one what? No one human, animal, organism or PARTICLE? In other words, who/what is the observer? Unfortunately (for some) in QM an observer IS NOT necessarily a human or an animal or an organism - it is in many cases a PARTICLE. So once again I stick with the more general meaning of an observer - a particle.

Now the statement reads "if a tree falls in the woods and there's no particles around to propagate the vibrations, does it make a sound?" And here we are at the crux of the problem - a tree falling in the woods ALWAYS has particles around to propagate the vibrations and the ENVIRONMENT becomes the observer. The act of a tree falling in the woods does generate vibrations that propagate through the environment because of the fact that the tree is not alone in the middle of nothing.

Now BNW will come back with something similar to "but how do you know it made any vibrations if no one (with a consciousness) was there to observe it?".
As I have pointed out a number of times though (with regards to other similar situations/discussions) that is where science comes in. If EVERY TIME we see a tree fall we hear a sound (vibrations) and other equipment picks up these vibrations - no exceptions!!! - then if we come across a fallen tree, we can say with 100% certainty that it made a sound (vibrations) when it fell.

In closing, I believe that no observable exists without an observer. If it did, it would not be observable. And IMHO, everything is an observer and an observable at the same time. The observer does not create the observable it merely changes it or consumes it. In this case the sound (vibration) is the observable, a living subject with hearing organs interprets the sound as frequencies in the audible range, particles merely interact and pass-on the vibration to neighboring particles. If the particles didn't interact (AS OBSERVERS) in such a way then you may have to throw out a sizeable chunk of physics and other sciences.

Well, that's my little 0.02 rant

Cheers

In a nutshell, physics happens whether we are there or not.

Ya very true. No copnsciousness means no reality or no way we can prove reality exists.





I agree. Cladking is just being difficult for the sake of it.

Again cladking what are the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE WORD NOISE AND SOUND????


First definition wording for "sound"

1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound


Now in this case we have "stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations".....without someone having organs or technical equipment or more importantly CONSCIOUSNESS to pick up vibrations then how can we prove there are vibrations???

The answer is OPEN for much interpretation. How can you say whether there is sound or not unless there is an observer?



Same and all transmitted vibrations of any frequency is a noise to some degree isnt it? Even silence is the sound of no sound. Hence why there is no fundamental difference between noise and sound.

Cause I could ask you to tell me one noise that has no vibration or frequency to it.



And without consciousness how could we be aware of any particlces?



Well how do you know if you arnt there? Unless you saying that the ENIVRONMENT has consciousness??? Aye? Cause I can agree to that if we say that the tree and ground etc also is conscious but then that is saying that there is someone there to hear it isnt it?????



Yes but what if there is a determining factor that comes into play and the tree doesnt make a sound? How can we be sure if there is nothing there to observe and confirm? How can we be 100 percent certain? Unless you are willing to make the claim that SCIENCE knows absolutely everything there is to know in and about the universe in every way??



So you believe that the whole universe is conscious? I do!



I love your little rants.

How can we say that if we arnt there to see whether it is there or not?

I'm gonna have to agree with BNW about this. Even though there will always be particles around; There is still nothing around there which has a conscious to be aware of the sound. I know that in my previous post i've been saying that it definately makes a sound. I still think that; but we simply cannot proove it.

Ofcourse the tree will still cause vibrations in the air, but since there is no-one with a conscious to be aware of the sound we will never know for sure.

Quantum Physics is only difficult to read if you brought a text book style choice.

Quantum a guide for the perplexed, which you can get in Waterstones, is written in a easy way so that everybody can grasp it.

Leaving the Quantum Physics alone we can also deal with the question philosophically.

Why do pendulums swing?
Most peoples answer would refer to a cause an effect relationship between somebody giving the weight a push and it swinging back an forth.
In the formula for swinging pendulums though the weight and length of the pendulum are also variables. In order to get the pendulum to swing you need all of them as without a length it wouldnt swing and without weight it wouldnt either.
So any of the variables can in fact be the cause.

To see a pendulum swinging you need other variables to - eyesight and memory.
If you swing a pendulum you see it swing and a memory is created. These are essential variables because if time then ran backwards you memory would be the first event, which would then cause a vision, which would then cause the pendulum to swing backwards.
If they aint variables in getting a pendulum to swing then how is this possible?

A tree collapsing in a far away forest needs a consciousness to collapse. It needs a consciousness to make a noise and even a consciousness to exist in the first place. Lol.

Yes, indeed, that's why I tried to narrow down the room for interpretation

Well, with my definition of an observer being a particle the statement "tree falling in woods" implies other particles around and hence other observers.

I pretty much agree here except that silence is not the sound of no sound, silence is just no sound (and no noise). If sound = transmitted vibrations then your statement becomes "Even silence is the transmission of vibrations of transmitted vibrations" - just does not make sense. No sound = no transmission of vibrations.

I have a pretty fair idea of what you are getting at here anyway, please do name a noise/sound that has no vibrations. If you do however, you realise that if it has no vibration (as per definition) it is not sound.

Exactly in the same way as one particle is aware of another. One such awareness mechanism is gravity. But there is a lot more to it than we have come to realise

The problem is how WE come to KNOW something. As a very complex life form with a large brain to interpret the messages from our environment the act of KNOWING is itself very complex and reliant on previously established concepts etc. etc. but as an example, the act of 'knowing' something for a microorganism is vastly different IMHO from ours. The vibrations of sound for example for a microorganism would be interpreted very differently (a violent wave of your innards moving significantly - in fact this is what the tiny bones in your ear do) as compared to hearing a frequency as interpreted by us. Similarly, a particle (at quantum scales naturally) would feel tidal elastic EM forces. So in light of this, I wouldn't say the environment has consciousness (since I personally attribute consciousness to complex life forms) BUT the environment is aware of what is happening within its light cone.

Exactly because of our prior testing that has shown 100% of time when a tree falls it makes a sound, coupled with energy conservation and other observations we can make (seismic etc.). Of course, we can say that the universe is collaborating against us but as I said before a sizeable chunk of physics and other sciences would have to be thrown out together with energy conservation (which has not failed yet).

I'd never dare to make such a claim only because I know there is very little most of us know about the universe and its splendid workings. However, there are some things that we are very certain about and this is because they have been tested by MANY, MANY times.

Not exactly. As mentioned, consciousness to me is very limiting - it is a glorified(?)/abstracted window into the universe. A single neuron in our grey matter is aware of electrochemical reactions (via many processes) but I cannot say that it is conscious in the same way as we are conscious. A particle (and in fact every single particle in the universe) is perturbed by others in its light cone and IMO must be aware to react consistently according to the apparent laws of physics (which BTW we have not created but merely uncovered). Although what we are both saying is very similar, you seem to be taking the consciousness that we are aware of now as THE ultimate awareness however IMO less is MORE The answers are hiding behind one's illusions of consciousness grandeur.

Cheers

Why make something so simple so complex? If someone steals your car but you dont see them steal it....well gee your car is still stolen. You have evidence of this as your car is not where you left it. Same as with a tree lying on the ground is evidence that a tree fell and we all know a falling tree makes a noise. If you will not believe evidence of an event then all forensic science is rubbish as nothing can happen without someone to observe it. Just because we do not know something does not mean it doesn't happen. To think the Universe revolves around OUR perceptions is a silly mind game argument and is merely an exercise in atempted philosophy. But then this is all relative to your view point. Now if we flip from a universal view point to a personal view point. I am at home in my lounge and a tree falls in the woods in Alaska. It makes no sound for me in my world because I am unaware of the event due to my limited perceptions. This still does not mean it didn't make a noise it just means I have limited perception. Same as if a deaf person witnessed the event. There are things going on in the universe beyond our cones of visibility. Things too vast for us to even be able to bear witness to. They are happening, its silly to think it otherwise, it smacks of childhood fantasy; Child covers eyes: I can't see you so you are not there.

The point is; we don't know anything about this tree so hard to compare with a car



I agree with you on this. It is VERY likely that the tree will make a sound because there is simply no reason why it should not. But as long as there is no observer to proove this we can never know for sure



I've asked the question: "if a deaf man stands near the tree and sees it falling, would it make a sound?"
Don't think I ever got an answer to that

Since everyone else under the sun added to this topic, just kidding, but there was alot, I will add mine.

It seems that the problem most often associated with this topic is that of semantics, what is meant by the word "sound" and it differs from person to person, so really debating this topic between people with differening definitions of the word is pointless. For instance take American football and say English football. same word, but put two people(one from each country) in a simple conversation discussing football and there will be bewilderment and confusion.

However here is my scientific take on the topic.

Sound (sound waves) is a disturbance of energy that moves through an assortment of mediums(be that air, water, rock etc..) in the form of longitudinal waves that can be characterized by frequency, wavelength, amplitude, and period. These waves can be generated in a multitude of frequencies.

Percieving these sounds(sound waves) is normally done throught the act of hearing, just as seeing is the act of percieving visible light waves. However perception of sound is not limited to the ears alone, the vibration of the sound waves alone can be detected by the body without actually hearing the sound. This is done when the body is caused to vibrate by sound waves. When this happens, the sound is usually at a frequency that our ears cannot detect.

So by my definition, if a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it, it would make sound (sound waves)

Now I also realize that this topic does open up a whole new can of worms when it comes down its philosophical debate of existence without perception.

My philosophical take

Just because we cannot percieve something does not mean it is nonexistant, it simply means that we lack the mechanisms to percieve it.

For all of those that claim that only with perception is there existence, I invite you to consider this, we humans cannot percieve Oxygen, we do not taste it, we do not smell it, we do not hear it, we do not feel, we do not see it. Therefore to you, Oxygen does not exist; thus going without oxygen would have no effect on your body.
Would you honestly place yourself into a situation that would deprive you of oxygen? I think not.

So you think all particles have consciousness?



Define sound without referring to silence. Silence is a sound if it wasnt a sound we wouldnt know what it sounded like.



Again silence is the sound of no sound. No sound is still a defined sound.



So all energy is consciousness? I can agree with that.



What is the difference between awareness and consciousness?



But if no one was there how could we be sure? It would be an act of faith. No consciousness is there to affirm whether these laws of physics are taking place accordingly.



But there has always been someone there MANY MANY times. How can we be certain if there is no conscious observer to take in the information? What if there is another determining factor that causes the tree not to give off sound? We wouldnt know because there is no one there. So it would be an act of faith.



Elaborate this please? Firstly what is the difference between consciousness and awareness? And how is a single neurons awareness different from ours? What is the fundamental difference between the "I-consciousness" of us and the consciousness of a particle?



So then the universe is just one giant consciousness? We could say that the universe created itself and also call it God? This is a reassuring thing.

If you arnt there to see it get stolen then how can you know whether it is stolen or not?



It is a probable chance that someone stole it. But how can you know for sure unless you didnt watch it get stolen?



Things may happen but we wont be able to prove it unless someone is there. No CONSCIOUSNESS EQUALS NO REALITY.



I agree, however it does mean we cant prove that something happened.



Well duh! Can you prove that the universe exists without consciousness?



And with those limiting perceptions you cannot prove whether that tree made a sound or not.



Ya but all these things beyond our visibility we agree exist via an act of faith.

Well said! I agree, no consciousness equals no reality or no way of proving reality exists!

I can't agree with this. No consciousness does indeed mean that there is no way of proving reality exists, but no consciousness does not neccesarrily mean no reality.

But reality exists only insofar as we consciously perceive it.

Yes and we do have a conscious so we can perceive this reality; Just because you can;t see the tree does it mean its not there?
I'm watching out of my window and I see a random tree; You have never seen taht tree so you are not aware of its reallness but it sure does exist.
So what i'm saying is that it doesn't matter wether we've seen the tree and wether we have consciously perceived it or not the tree can still exist.

I don't think a tree is that vain. If I fell in the woods, would I attempt to draw sympathy, for my misfortune, only if others were around?


Does the tree not have it's own reality to exist?

EXACTLY! The tree is consciouss, maybe not on the same level as we are, but it is still living and breathing. It has the same cellular activity as any other living creature so why would we assume it is not consciouss?

Because a tree can not think, it is not aware of anything that happens, so it does not have a conscious.

I know, there for I am
does a tree know its existance?

just because it cannot think doesn't mean it doesn't have a soul or a consciousness... the definition of conscious is an awareness of ones self... basically, that is what it is. So, because a tree doesn't think or speak doesn't mean it isn't aware of what it is within itself. The tree doesn't feel like we do, it doesn't hear, it doesn't see... but it does live. The cells in a tree carry out functions similar to how cells in an animal carry out functions. These cells are aware of their own existance, if they weren't they wouldn't function and therefore the tree has some level consciousness

If a tree doesn't think , how can it know its own existance?

Sure the idea of "sound" or the definition is a concept. But is sound itself a concept? And what about soundwaves? Soundwaves can actually move things.

You seem to exchange concept for being. Also, it's kind of an egocentric view. If I were to die, and then be brought back a few minutes later by people, just because I didn't see or hear people bringing me back doesn't mean that it didnt happen.

Trees talk to each other aswell

There are many trees that have been recorded to give off some sort of electric signal (i'm no scientist so i dont know the details) when a bug starts to eat their leaves that triggers a reaction in other trees of the same species (they're not bilingual ) to exude a poisonous sap to deter the bug from eating them. I think its beautiful

mmm yeah, back to the discussion

well... all individual cells share a common trait, that is the microtubule which pretty much regulates all cellular functions.

It is a big mystery as to how these structures communicate and is thought of by some to be the only explainable mechanism for consciousness. see here

But before you read those 2 paragraphs and say "plants don't have brains" first read the entire article about microtubules and their functions in ALL cells, not just neurons. Then, tell me they don't exhibit some quality of consciousness.